[Cicero]

Unless it violates the second law of thermodynamics, you have to put more power in than you get out. Which, ultimately, means using nuclear power plants to provide power going into the process.

Nothing wrong with that, but the greenies will predictably object. And the regulators have pretty much guaranteed that there will be little or no new nuclear power in the foreseeable future.

Also, it’s not necessarily green, since if you convert enough CO2, you’ll starve the plants.

[OneWingedShark]

Also, it’s not necessarily green, since if you convert enough CO2, you’ll starve the plants.

What if, despite all the alarmist hype about CO₂, we are currently on the verge of starving plants?

[UCANSEE2]

Also, it’s not necessarily green, since if you convert enough CO2, you’ll starve the plants.

Who cares if we have food, as long as we have air conditioning.

[Rocky]

if you convert enough CO2, you’ll starve the plants.

Not really. When you burn the methanol, you get the CO2 back. The real hangup, like all such new developments, is the cost, as the article honestly says. You have to make the hydrogen donor chemical and it takes a lot of energy to make it. And, where is the hydrogen coming from in the first place? Articles like this drive me nuts.

[Royal Wulff]

Heck it’s not even a 2nd Law issue, it’s a 1st Law problem: You have to put energy in to convert CO2 to methanol, since burning methanol releases energy and produces CO2.